Which bottle did you just buy and why?

@OdysseusUnbound, Lagavulin DE has gotten expensive in recent years, but your LCBO price is (after currency conversions) not a lot higher than it is in many parts of the world. Consider it a small luxury.

Today I picked up a bottle of Gibsons Finest 12 year old Rare Canada 150 because the bottle stood out from the rest. Looking forward to trying it. I also picked up a bottle of Wayne Gretzky 99 Red Cask. It was on sale and I enjoy his wine so I figured I would give it a try.

@OdysseusUnbound , that feeling of potential "loss" once the bottle is in your hands is hard to overcome. Enjoy!

@paddockjudge , try this:

The LCBO has a [LEGAL? MORAL?] obligation to _______. They are failing to fulfill this obligation because they _______.

My wife called me asking if I could get some coolers for her so I picked up 2 bottles of JP Weisers One Fifty. My bottles have July 3 1944 and May 18 1953 on them.

Legal obligation to ensure people don't overdrink or drink underage. They are failing at the first part because despite massive overpricing on scotch a person can buy cheap liquor at the same alcohol percentage. Ie. their price model doesn't control the consumption of alcohol - it just makes some some cheaper than others.

After letting my Lagavulin DE sit for a good 25 minutes, I started sipping. Admittedly in a honeymoon phase, but richer and deeper (if that makes sense) than regular Lagavulin 16 (which I love ALMOST as much as my own children). The nose, oh the nose. I'll probably leave it now for a week or two. I'm going to try my best to make this one last at least until September...we'll see how that works out.

@nooch , so the LCBO is supposed to help control citizens' alcohol consumption, and their high prices are, supposedly, be part of how they do that? Weird.

@paddockjudge , is that what you were getting at? I think you were making a different point.

@Ol_Jas they are SUPPOSED to be controlling consumption. It's all in theory. LCBO is an acronym for Liquor Control Board of Ontario. That's part of how they justify their pricing, which is high despite the fact that they are the world's largest liquor buyer. I say this having contacted them regarding their pricing. The response was that pricing was a way to regulate consumption. That's obviously bs because not all alcohols at similar ABV are priced similarly.

@nooch I have also contacted the LCBO regarding pricing. I got a similar response, discouraging excessive consumption etc...

@Ol_Jas Yeah, because grown-assed adults obviously can't be trusted. We need Big Brother to excessively tax our alcohol. It's for our own good. Doubleplus good.

@OdysseusUnbound @Ol_Jas LCBO and SAQ are Siamese Twins. They came with ads telling us 1 dram of spirits equals 1 glass of wine or a bottle of beer in their effort to manage our consumption of alcohol; the argument came naturally to them they were using it to set multiplicators in their pricing policies! Experiences at the borders taught me so. I am sure you have them to.

@paddockjudge Going back a few days now to your response, but I had some time to think about it.

I appreciate your insight, you clearly have a much greater understanding on the inner workings and business of the LCBO than I. And maybe it's my pragmatism, but with respect, I just can't get behind the, "there is absolutely nothing we can do about it" regarding LCBO pricing. Going back to the basics here, aside from fair market price, is not the core of price based on supply and demand? Could we as a group of consumers "picket" the out of control spirit prices, essentially reducing their demand and subsequent prices? If everyone (the Ontario whisky community) refused to buy ECBP or like products with ridiculous pricing (almost all Ardbeg and Balvenie products), what would happen? Surely the LCBO would follow their pattern in just liquidating and never restocking some products, but big brands like Balvenie will always be available at the LCBO. Would they not lower their prices if Balvenie sales came to a halt as a direct result of consumers refusing to buy because of high prices? This is a genuine question. I just feel that there is a smallish community (though growing larger) of people buying these high-end, special release whiskys, and as a community if we stood together by not buying certain products across the board that there is a potential to change things. Not to sound naive, but I believe change 'can' take place if people work together to make it so.

@Mancub,

There is no doubt that change can occur; however, keep in mind that approximately 90 % of LCBO sales do not include brown spirits and of the 10% that do include brown spirits I would guess most of those sales to be bottom shelf mixers.

In the past two years or more I have purchased only two bottles of Scotch Single Malt from LCBO. The most recent purchase is Macallan 18 YO Double Cask, a $100 sulphur bomb mistake. Caveat emptor. The second bottle was obtained when I returned a gift of Dalwhinnie 15 YO. i was able to purchase Glenlivet Archive 21 YO for $140CDN plus the returned Dalwhinnie.

Finding alternative markets will require some effort. With help from of a large network of friends and trustworthy contacts I've been able to find single malts in Florida, New Mexico, Texas, Alberta, and New Brunswick, all at steep discounts to local prices. Additional acquisitions have been made through trades. Bourbon and Canadian whisky prices are somewhat more reasonable locally and I continue to purchase these styles of whisky at LCBO.

@Ol_Jas,

in reference to your post to @nooch

---

"Ol_Jas replied

@nooch , so the LCBO is supposed to help control citizens' alcohol consumption, and their high prices are, supposedly, be part of how they do that? Weird.

@paddockjudge , is that what you were getting at? I think you were making a different point."

---

The point I was making was relevant to integrity. When an item enters the LCBO pipeline the retail price is not fixed, it can rise before that specific allotment has completed its journey from vendor to end user. Often a price will change overnight. These all too common price spikes are nothing short of unethical. It is a pure squeeze on consumers. Hmmm, I wonder if there is an additional payment by the LCBO to vendors/suppliers when this price change happens. It is common knowledge that suppliers are penalised or asked to subsidise price reductions on slow moving items.

New Brunswick Liquor has been known to maintain a static pricing model. They not only provide the balance on hand at store level, but also include stock levels in warehouses. Prices did not rise unless the vendors (or taxes) raise prices. Now that is transparency! Sadly, it seems more and more jurisdictions are following the LCBO dynamic pricing model.

@paddockjudge Did you mean Macallan 12 year old Double Cask in your earlier post? I can't see any 18 year old Macallan, no matter how bad, going for $100.

BTW @paddockjudge, BC's government controlled liquor stores are on the same pricing program as the LCBO.

@BlueNote, Yes, I did mean macallan 12 YO double cask. It is an abomination. Shame on macallan for releasing this garbage.

For those of you who are not sensitive to sulphur tainted whisky, please accept the fact that sulphur tainted whisky is real and not imagined...some people are colour blind and some are sulphur blind.

@paddockjudge Agreed. Sulphur destroys good whisky. Jim Murray, despite all his other odd views, is absolutely right on the issue of sulphur.

I have had a couple of bottles of the standard Macallan 12 @43% that I picked up in Oregon recently and it is still a very decent dram. Runs just over $50 down there. Most reviewers agree with you on the 12 Double Cask.

Cheers

@BlueNote,

that's a good score! I retrieved one in New Mexico, $47 ex tax.

B.C. and ON prices are very steep. I take advantage of selection and value whenever I'm away. It's not just about price, but also availability.

@OdysseusUnbound To be fair, if the LCBO had more reasonable prices I would buy more of my Scotch in Ontario, and probably more altogether. But it would not change the amount I drink. So they are protecting me from wasting too much money on stuff I'll never get to.

@paddockjudge , so it's unethical if the LCBO raises a price on something they haven't experienced a price hike on? I don't see why.

If you were sitting on a bunch of _______ (fill in the blank with something you could've bought in the past that's now worth more—say, some 1964 Springbank, or some early Port Ellen OBs, or Black Bowmore—whatever—I choose those examples just because of their obvious price differences over time), and you were in the business of selling this stuff for profit, would you be charging a price that reflects your original outlay in the past, or the current market price?

@Ol_Jas LCBO is a Crown corporation, so, yes, it's unethical.

@Ol_Jas It's unethical because they have a monopoly. I can't (legally) buy the most basic Glenfiddich 12 from anyone else in Ontario. And if I want something they don't carry, or they only carry in the center of the Universe (aka Toronto) like, say an Isle of Arran 14, well then I'm S.O.L.

@Nozinan , what's the implication of the Crown corporation thing? Are they supposed to act in the best interests of the Crown's subjects above all else, or something like that?

@OdysseusUnbound , I get that the LCBO is a local monopoly and that sucks. Are you saying the monopoly itself is unethical? If so, I see that too. But I thought we were talking about the ethics of price changes.

@Ol_Jas

I think the problems with the LCBO are more complicated than a single issue here or a single issue there. suffice it to say that as a Crown Corporation it should be operating according to the interests of the Ontario citizens. It fails in many ways:

1. Regardless of pricing, as one of the world's largest block buyers it should be able to get products for the best prices. Audits have repeatedly shown that for spirits they do not do that.

2. As one of the world's largest single buyer markets it should have access to a large variety and selection - they do not (compared to much smaller privatized markets).

3. Bulk buying should reduce overhead and result in lower prices than smaller markets -nope again.

4. As for pricing in general, if the LCBO something at $7 and is selling it at $10, there needs to be justification to suddenly hike the price up to $15 when it is not going up in other markets at the same rate. That is essentially an increased tax (in an environment where tax increases are "taboo")

I could go on. Even if you argue that the job of the corporation is to maximize revenue for the government, I don't see how they can justify raising prices instead of first lowering their costs (see 1 above), and if there is demand for greater variety, they should be bringing in that variety to increase sales (see 2 above).

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for public monopolies. LCBO provides union jobs at good, living wages rather than minimum wage precarious employment, and it brings in badly needed revenue to the government. I just think it could and should be run better.

@Nozinan , I'll try to summarize that into two points:

A. The LCBO fails to use their market power to serve its customers with low prices or wide selection.

B. Because the LCBO is part of the government (or sanctioned by it, or whatever the deal is), their profits are effectively taxes.

Anything associated with (A) I would just write off as "monopolies suck." But the (B) stuff is really interesting, and maybe what @paddockjudge was trying to convey earlier.

@Nozinan Without getting too politically charged, I'm not in favour of government monopolies. There are exceptions (e.g. Healthcare) and I think the Ontario situation could be improved. LCBO workers have good jobs, benefits etc. that could be preserved while improving the market for consumers. You've outlined some very practical solutions. But seeing as they're practical and logical, there's a zero percent chance that the government will implement them, regardless of which party is in power. I'm a teacher and I see this all the time.

Finally picked up a bottle of Flaming Heart.

Been watching the price since my local Costco picked these up..... just dropped to $60. May have to pick another one up...

@chrisbator That is one good deal brother. I paid over $135 Can for mine and I should have bought two. It is an excellent dram. If that is the 15th anniversary edition, grab as many as you can afford, even if you can't afford. There were only about 12000 bottles worldwide.

Cheers